BA has chosen to ignore the strike mandate repeatedly, every vote has been overwhelming by any measure with over 75% in favour of a strike, yet BA has sought to circumvent this mandate given by its key front line.

Would the outcome of any of the votes have been materially impacted by the exploited technicalities – NO.

Why if the Walsh-Woodley talks provided an acceptable offer was the subsequent vote over 78% in favour of striking. Clearly it was not acceptable to continue to victimise strikers etc.

For PR purposes BA claims to have negotiated yet the vast majority of the angst would cost BA financially nothing to resolve. BA has been totally intransigent.

The BA offer of pay inceases is purely for PR and is a sop – the dispute has never been about pay.

BA initiated the dispute by breaking agreements. Since then they have taken an intransigent stance with continued use of the stick, intimidation, victimisation and bullying.

Both sides agreeing to binding ACAS arbitration on all items is the way forward. BA has thus far not agreed to this.